Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize By Thomas DiLorenzo

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23676.htm

October 9, 2009 "LRC" -- So Obama joins Woodrow Wilson in the pantheon of American presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize (Wilson won it in 1919). I learned this morning that nominations for the prize had to be in by Feb. 20, about one month after Obama was inaugurated. That means that the prize went for his rhetoric during the campaign, not anything he could have actually accomplished.

As I recall, his two most memorable foreign policy pronouncements during the campaign were 1) advocating that the U.S. bomb Pakistan; and 2) escalating the war in Afghanistan. He did order the murder of some people in Pakistan by bombardment shortly after taking office. I’m still surprised, though, that he won the prize after killing so few people. Usually, one must be a major league murderer like a Wilson or a Teddy Roosevelt to win such a prize.

He's the fool who wrote a book calling Lincoln a tyrant and is pro-Confederate.

(...)
DiLorenzo has authored at least ten books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today, How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present, and Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe. DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending its right to secede in a view similar to that of abolitionist Lysander Spooner. <4> He has also criticized the crediting of the New Deal for ending the Great Depression.<5>
(...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

******
DiLorenzo is clearly a "hero" worthy of Faux, the Republican Party and the Freepers. He has no business being quoted at DU, at least not if the OP wants to appear credible.
The mere fact that such as he are leading the charge to delegitimize Obama's honor actually legitimizes it in my eyes. The naysayers all conveniently ignore the sea change in the international diplomatic environment that has occurred because of Obama's approaches to the global community in the months since he has taken office. Accolades rather than shoes sums it up in a nutshell.

Your tendentious and sanctimonious post is unhelpful in the Obama debate and does nothing to further the discussion of how best to end these wars and get our people home. Let me know when you are ready for a serious debate on Obama instead of this nonsense.

My, my, my - the trolls are sure out in force tonite...and you aparently are enjoying rolling in the dirt with them all...

SHAME ON YOU!!!

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-smackdown-wrap.html

I was certain I was either reading an Onion headline or had woken up in an alternative reality when I learned that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Huh? Even Obama had the good sense to say he didn’t deserve it:

This morning, Michelle and I awoke to some surprising and humbling news. At 6 a.m., we received word that I’d been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.

But I also know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.

This is all nice phrasemaking, which is Obama’s long suit. But since we are seeing that “Change you can believe is” is really “no change”, I remain skeptical that this supposed call to action will lead to any action, or at least of the sort that the award committee intended.

What is telling is the skepticism this award elicited, not the to-be-expected sort from the right, but from those of the center to left persuasion. For instance, Matt Yglesias admitted to being close to tongue-tied. Raw Story took note of the discomfort in “Not just conservatives mocking Obama’s Nobel win.” Clusterstock gave us, “Twitter Explodes With Obama Peace Prize Mockery.” I have never seen so many articles on Huffington Post on a single subject, and they were largely dubious, although some went to great lengths to be judicious about it.

Given the extensive coverage, a few samples illustrate the range of reactions. From Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times:

I am a genuine admirer of Obama. And I am very pleased that George W Bush is no longer president. But I doubt that I am alone in wondering whether this award is slightly premature. It is hard to point to a single place where Obama’s efforts have actually brought about peace – Gaza, Iran, Sri Lanka? The peace prize committee say that he is being rewarded for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy”. But while it is OK to give school children prizes for “effort” – my kids get them all the time – I think international statesmen should probably be held to a higher standard.

It is also very odd timing. In the next couple of weeks, Obama is likely to yield to the wishes of his generals and to send many thousands more troops to Afghanistan. That will mean he is a wartime president, just as much as Bush or Lyndon Johnson. If Afghanistan ends up being Obama’s Vietnam, giving him the Nobel Peace Prize will look even sillier in a few years time.

Joe Mathews of the New America Foundation, quoted at Politico, saw it as a clever political move by the Nobel Committee (which he incorrectly called Swedes, this one happened to be Norwegian):

Sure, he doesn’t have much of a record yet as a peacemaker (outside of Cambridge, Mass. and getting the pro-Hillary deadenders to fall in line). But this is a very, very clever move by the Nobel committee.

How’s that? First off, the choice of Obama has the whole world talking about the Nobel Prize. If they’d pick some Cambodian rice farmer/anti-war activist, no one would have noticed. The Nobel is relevant again. Second — and I suspect this was the committee’s real motivation — this choice, precisely because it’s controversial, gets common people all the over world talking, debating and thinking about peace and diplomacy. That’s important, especially in America, where citizens are much more focused on the economy and health care than on these kinds of issues.

If you doubt the wisdom of this choice, just look at the huge worldwide media coverage of this choice in the first few hours after it happened. Nice work, Swedes.

And then we have the Mencius Moldbug theory (extracted from longer-form musings):

The problem is that Americans, even progressives, are the people in the world who adore Obama the least. Normally it is advantageous, for continuity purposes, that Europeans love Obama. But it is not advantageous that they love him so much. It is weird, distracting and confusing. In short: off message.

This strange European affection is easily explained. You see, there was once an agency named the Office of War Information, which was more or less the pro-Roosevelt press organized as a government agency. OWI no longer exists, but not because it fell from favor; some of its people went to CIA, some went to State, some went back to pretending to be ordinary citizens. OWI is essentially the bureaucratic ancestor of the “mainstream media” as we know it today.

After the unfortunate events of 1941-45, the surviving Continental friends of these gentlemen were organized into a new industry, the official media of Europe. Even in Britain, those loyal to the new military configuration of the planet were praised and petted, and reproduced intellectually; those who were not so sure grew old, had no students, declined and died. Europe is a Darwinian paradise of information, all adapted to military events. You can be sure that had things gone otherwise, the grandchildren of Celine, Brasillach and Drieu la Rochelle would constitute “European public opinion.”

So the problem is: Europe is gaga for Obama not because the wise Europeans, with their centuries of history, raw-milk cheeses and infinitely subtle wines, have deliberated long on the subject, gazed into their crystal balls and detected the promise and meaning of Obama. Europe is gaga for Obama because Europe, as we now know it, is a propaganda colony of Washington. The pre-1940 Europe is of historical interest only, like the Aztecs.

But this is not the Warsaw Pact. Nothing in this relationship is coordinated or hierarchical; Europe is gaga for Obama not because Washington sends it instructions to go gaga for Obama; Europe is gaga for Obama because it truly loves Obama. It wants to love Obama.

In fact, we can see this perfectly in the Nobel episode, because no White House flack in his right mind would have ever asked for this. No State Department would have lobbied for it. If, as some believe, Obama is just a front for the Jews – the Jews are horrified. This ridiculous thing will be a millstone around the administration’s neck for the next three years. Whoever did it cannot have been acting under any sort of instructions.

Well, here are a few instructions.
From The Nobel Peace Prize: From Peace Negotiations to Human Rights
by Francis Sejersted
Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Commitee, 1991-1999
Read the entire article at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/sejer...

1.Where the Peace Prize is concerned, the wording has been seen as opening up opportunities to engage in processes which have not yet reached a conclusion, but where there has been clear evidence of progress...

2.The Prize, in other words, is not only for past achievement, although that is the most important criterion. The committee also takes the possible positive effects of its choices into account. Among the reasons for adding this as a criterion is the obvious point that Nobel wanted the Prize to have political effects. Awarding a Peace Prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act – which is also the reason why the choices so often stir up controversy.

3.The mention in the will of the "abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the holding and promotion of peace congresses" reflects the period in which the will was written. The approach today is to see it as pointing to general disarmament and the dissemination of the concept of peace. The most important provision, however, is contained in the term "fraternity between nations." This general and open provision has provided a basis for the wide definition of peace-related work which the committee has applied right from the start.

4.The selection of individual prize-winners is never easy, but the focus on particular cases does make it possible to take into consideration the whole range of relevant factors, whether of a universalist or culturally related kind, and to strike a balance. The Laureate will symbolise good will and purity of heart all over the world, but the choice must also win sympathy in his or her own cultural environment. It is the committee's experience that it is possible to find worthy candidates who represent universal ideals of human rights in the most varied cultures.

5.Laureates must be more than skilled diplomats; it is important for them also to be able to stand out as symbols of good will. Only then can the Peace Prize contribute, in the words of Laureate Elie Wiesel, "to turning history into a moral endeavour."

6.Why has the Nobel Peace Prize acquired such enormous prestige? There are many peace prizes, some of them worth large amounts of money. But none of them have so far matched the Nobel Prize in prestige. This is partly fortuitous, and also a question of the age of the Prize. But it must also be attributed to the assumption underlying what we have been discussing, which is that the broad range of criteria always includes what I have called a strong moral element. It appears to be precisely this type of prize which has the potential to attract people's attention. There also appears to be a self-reinforcing element here: widespread attention attracts still more attention. Many people, in short, feel a need for symbols that can appeal to their better instincts, or (Kant again) help them to overcome the evil principle in themselves. The choices of Peace Prize Laureates appear to have succeeded in some measure in creating symbols of this kind, whether the Laureate is a humanitarian aid worker like Mother Teresa or Fridtjof Nansen, an antimilitarist like Carl von Ossietzky, a statesman like Woodrow Wilson or Willy Brandt, or a campaigner for human rights like Nelson Mandela or Carlos Belo. I think this goes a long way towards explaining the prestige of the Prize. When all is said and done, the most important effect of the Nobel Peace Prize may be that it has succeeded in creating clear symbols which appeal to our best instincts – symbols of good will.

among the self-righteous and self-approving of both the left and the right is a sure indication of the soundness of the selection. Props to Mr Cole for getting it right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x488012

Hey, Obama didn't start two of the longest wars in American history 9 months after taking office. That's worth SOMETHING, right?


Now, if we could just end the useless wars we already have (well, not useless to everyone, they've certainly boosted Dick Cheney's personal balance sheet).